Issue: Under federal law, what standard does a court apply to determine whether a plaintiff in a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) is "otherwise qualified" to perform the "essential functions" of his or her job?
| Area of Law: | Employee Law |
| Keywords: | Individuals with disabilities; Essential functions; Perform |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 926 F. Supp. 1340; 165 F.3d 460 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 02/01/2001 |
"The plain language of the Act clearly indicates that the ADA was designed to afford relief only to those individuals with disabilities who can perform the essential functions of the job that they hold or seek." Vaughan v. Harvard Indus., Inc., 926 F. Supp. 1340, 1348 (W.D. Tenn. 1996) (finding unpersuasive the plaintiff’s argument that he could perform some essential functions but not others). The court or jury looks at the position description to initially determine whether the particular function is essential. Ison v. Lakeland Reg’l Health Sys., No. 97-1222, 1998 WL 344033, at **2 (6th Cir. May 28, 1998) (comparing the plaintiff’s work restrictions with the job description and holding that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job). Whether a particular job function is essential is usually a question for the jury and should not be resolved by a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Brickers v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 145 F.3d 846, 849 (6th Cir. 1998); Tuck, 7 F.3d at 470, 471.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of an ADA plaintiff, holding that the district court’s action in offsetting pension benefits so as to reduce the jury’s award to nothing was reversible error. Hamlin v. Charter Township, 165 F.3d 426, 428 (6th Cir. 1999). The Hamlin plaintiff suffered an injury that caused him temporary total disability, but he was authorized to return to […]